was following the DOME group through sandy bay today and noticed some poor form for group riding, three abreast, one guy weaving from one side of the road to the other whilst trying to talk to someone behind him, looked like total chaos really. Im happy to sit behind a group of cyclists as long as a i need to before overtaking safely , but guys try and at least look like your trying to do the right thing, just remember that if we expect drivers to pay us some courtesy then at least pay attention to your own behavior on the road.

Not saying it happens every week, infact Ive been known to rie with them, not very often anymore granted...but they are getting a rep for not obeying road rules and crashing. Maybe a talk before the ride to all riders, telling them, 2 abreast only, under no circumstances 3 abreast. And general cycling road group ettiquette for the new and some of the other riders.

I have not ridden with the Dome group (regretably) since January, however I doubt that their modis operandi has changed much in that period. I have always considered them to be well organised, with a very competent Captain in charge.Nobody is perfect, and from time to time people will perform, in the excitement of the moment, at less than ideal. My feeling is that groups with an identifiable origin come in for more criticism, because they can be identified, and commented apon. It would be interesting to see hospital records of admissions resulting from cycling mishaps. I think that we would be astonished at the numbers, and the circumstances.

I do quite a bit of riding alone. All too frequently I find myself in an uncomfortable situation, with no one else too blame.

Perhaps we should all try to lift our game, and remember the advice about living in glass houses................................

An interesting one this - Dome has two bunches these days - to cater for the shorter distance - slower ride and the alternate. The vast majority of the riders in the groups are recreational riders out to enjoy a trundle with like-minded others. It is rare that a week goes by without a new rider turning up or a visitor from interstate joining in. Along with that there is a revolving door of 'regulars' who turn up and the sum of all of that is that the bunches wil be a bit ragged at times as people settle in with others. There is always a fair bit of "watch out for him" within the bunch as the settling in of riders to a safe and sensible riding pattern occurs.

Sandy Bay Road would have to be one of the more difficult roads to have a bunch act 'appropriately'. With all the nasty little cracks inthe concrete and changing road conditions it is a nasty piece of work at best.

Am I always the epitomy of cycling etiquette - not likely. Do I break road rules with Dome - rarely. Do I break the road rules when not with Dome - rarely. Do I crash with Dome - not yet - but sooner or later. Do I crash when out on my own - well - not since that traffic island that jumped out in front of me. Do I see or hear of racing cyclists and other purists crashing - regularly.

Its hard enough to get our disparate group to get along at the best of times so perhaps giving everyone a bit of leeway every now and then - even including motorists - would serve us all well.

Oxford wrote:3 abreast is OK as long as someone is passing at the time, but 3 abreast and just cruising along is a no no.

Also worth noting that the Channel Highway along this route is suitable for single-file only, as there is a narrow bike lane. I'm not pointing the finger at the Dome bunch, but when I lived in Taroona a lot of groups routinely broke the law by riding two-abreast (or more) with the outermost rider in the regular lane along this stretch.

m@ wrote:Also worth noting that the Channel Highway along this route is suitable for single-file only, as there is a narrow bike lane. I'm not pointing the finger at the Dome bunch, but when I lived in Taroona a lot of groups routinely broke the law by riding two-abreast (or more) with the outermost rider in the regular lane along this stretch.

Um, it's not against the law to ride two-abreast along there. Yes, it's narrow and it's courteous to ride single file, but it isn't against the law. Once you get onto Bonnet Hill, a car cannot legally and safely pass a cyclist -- they either must pass too close to the cyclist or cross a wheel over the centre double lines. Most drivers take the sensible route and put a wheel over the centre line. But it can be problematic.

m@ wrote:Also worth noting that the Channel Highway along this route is suitable for single-file only, as there is a narrow bike lane. I'm not pointing the finger at the Dome bunch, but when I lived in Taroona a lot of groups routinely broke the law by riding two-abreast (or more) with the outermost rider in the regular lane along this stretch.

Um, it's not against the law to ride two-abreast along there. Yes, it's narrow and it's courteous to ride single file, but it isn't against the law. Once you get onto Bonnet Hill, a car cannot legally and safely pass a cyclist -- they either must pass too close to the cyclist or cross a wheel over the centre double lines. Most drivers take the sensible route and put a wheel over the centre line. But it can be problematic.

Yeah, I only meant along the section with a bike lane - not the Bonnet climb itself. Probably should've stated, most of the Channel Highway... and to be more precise, it isn't illegal to ride two-abreast per se; just illegal to ride in the traffic lane (subject to the normal disclaimers) - which is a necessary consequence of riding two-abreast along there.

I don't think I've ever seen groups riding two-abreast up Bonnet Hill as they're always strung out pushing for line honours

m@ wrote:Yeah, I only meant along the section with a bike lane - not the Bonnet climb itself. Probably should've stated, most of the Channel Highway... and to be more precise, it isn't illegal to ride two-abreast per se; just illegal to ride in the traffic lane (subject to the normal disclaimers) - which is a necessary consequence of riding two-abreast along there.

It's kinda ambiguous, and could be read either way:

"Cyclists can not ride more than two abreast unless overtaking. When riding two abreast riders should not be more than 1.5m apart. This rule also applies on bike paths, shared paths and shoulder of the road (Rule 151)"

conflicts with

"The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so (Rule 247)"

I read those rules together such that we can ride two abreast, because it is impracticable for the right hand rider to ride in the bicycle lane Also, it's often impracticable to ride in the Taroona bike lanes due to obstructions, poor surface, etc, etc

I also discovered the following pair of rules today, which I wasn't aware of, and which resolves the Bonnet Hill issues neatly:

"A driver on a road with a dividing line may drive to the right of the dividing line to avoid an obstruction if the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and it is necessary and reasonable, in all the circumstances, for the driver to drive to the right of the dividing line to avoid the obstruction; and the driver can do so safely (Rule 139)"

"A driver must not overtake a vehicle unless the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and the driver can safely overtake the vehicle (Rule 140)"

Also, the following may be useful (next time you have an argument with a driver, ask them if they are familiar with rule 144):

"A driver overtaking a bicycle must pass at a sufficient distance to avoid a collision or obstructing the path of the bicycle; and must not return to the marked lane or line of traffic where the bicycle is travelling until the driver is a sufficient distance past the bicycle to avoid a collision or obstructing the path of the bicycle (Rule 144)."

Always an interesting topic this one - I really like the call sign from M@ about he four phases of commuting. Maybe we are all somewhere in the first three phases and complaining about the ones in the fourth?

Bonnet Hill is no different to just about every other C rated road I have ridden on - not enough space for a bicycle and a car to share the same lane. That clearly applies then to two bicycles and a car. The riders trundle along safely in the knowledge that the legalities of the situation are quite clear and they have every right to be where they are. Whether that is "courteous" is always a matter of which lens you are looking through. The car drivers trundle along generally happy to wait and overtake when safe to do so - and that is the "courteous" thing to do.

The problems seem to occur when one of the parties doesn't have the same view of what is "courteous". That seems to create side arguments for either of the parties to justify inappropriate conduct. The classic one is the driver's reliance on an illogical aside that bikes should be registered. That completely unrelated issue gives them some justification for not acting appropriately. All interesting human behavioural issues to discuss over coffee or beer.

m@ wrote:Yeah, I only meant along the section with a bike lane - not the Bonnet climb itself. Probably should've stated, most of the Channel Highway... and to be more precise, it isn't illegal to ride two-abreast per se; just illegal to ride in the traffic lane (subject to the normal disclaimers) - which is a necessary consequence of riding two-abreast along there.

It's kinda ambiguous, and could be read either way:<snip>I read those rules together such that we can ride two abreast, because it is impracticable for the right hand rider to ride in the bicycle lane Also, it's often impracticable to ride in the Taroona bike lanes due to obstructions, poor surface, etc, etc

Interesting; there was a thread here a year or two ago discussing this apparent conflict - based on an SA Gov't publication "SA handbook for cylists and road rules" stating that "You must not ride outside a bicycle lane abreast of another rider in a bicycle lane unless overtaking.". While that's not necessarily the correct interpretation, it makes sense to me and fits with the 'vibe' of rule 247; cyclists should not occupy a regular lane where a usable cycle lane is provided.

Again, this isn't the case up Bonnet - but is through Taroona itself (except on rubbish collection day ); there are also very limited opportunities for cars to safely pass a cyclist riding in the regular lane so just common sense IMO to keep to the bike lane when safe to do so.

m@ wrote:[ based on an SA Gov't publication "SA handbook for cylists and road rules"

One of the nice things about Australia is that the generous taxpayers support a multitude of politicians, public servants, and assorted hangers on, to dream up, enforce, monitor, and review more than half a dozen sets of rules relating to forms of road transport ranging from horses with carts, bicycles, cars, trucks, through to road trains. They might have missed the Tasman Bridge Gopher, however there is probably sub committees in every state and territory working their tea trolleys off in an endeavour to regulate this menace in a way unique to their little corner of the country.My point is...........................?Glad you asked

What on earth have those queer people in SA got to do with the roads of Sandy Bay?

master6 wrote:What on earth have those queer people in SA got to do with the roads of Sandy Bay?

Nothing except that it was the starting point of the discussion I linked to above... though as both States have adopted the Australian Road Rules the rules in question appear in each State's road rules, and the interpretation would presumably be the same.

Of course the SA Gov't interpretation could be be incorrect (they're just bureaucrats after all, not politicians ) - but it would then be consistently incorrect in both SA and Tas.

Really though I agree with D - it shouldn't really matter whether using both lanes can be legally defended by a loophole - in places like Taroona it's just inconsiderate and can only lead to unnecessary angst and conflict.

the whole topic seems to have deviated from Iantas first post............I think he was only trying to make a point that the Dome group should be a little more careful.........

Ive only ever rode with them 2 or 3 times (last year) & it seemed to be well organised & under control, probably better than okay to ride with, since I noticed a few of the regular riders seem to take on the role of making sure everyone is Okay & no one is left behind.Oddly though I had heard about the group being know for crashes but I never saw any evidence of it happening (except for 1 guy falling off on a railway line at bridgewater bridge at about 2kph), but I dont think that is classed as a crash as per say.

Instead of justfiying our actions (as cyclists) all I think he is after is for some one to say is "sorry about that we will be more careful next time" Which I think Benevolant dictator did say in a round about way

re Dome and crashes, i have been riding with Dome for a few years and have never seen a crash, bar the one baz was talking about where a very experienced rider took the wrong line with some rail lines.

bazsand wrote:Which I think Benevolant dictator did say in a round about way

There aren't any roundabouts on Sandy Bay Road - where are we going with this Baz??

Have you seen the plans for the Sandy Bay Road Cycle Lanes? Because that added 3 or 4 roundabouts to Sandy Bay Road... And there was a meeting last night where the aldermen all basically agreed that the bike lanes should go in. Sorta. Let's wait and see, it's only been 20 years so far...

well this got completely off topic didn't it! Anyway to add, the area was basically down into the sandy bay area near Nutgrove beach, the group was just cruising along chatting doing about 25km/h, my point was that if you want to get into a group with the same kit then you should acknowledge that really your also advertising cycling as a sport, and to ride without any consideration for other road users is pretty poor form, i doubt it matters as much when your in small groups if your a bit erratic in your riding as a safe overtake by cars can be had, but when the group is spread out over about 20m and several guys are weaving from the left to the center line when in cruising mode. Anyway point made, and i hope that some of the DOME guys here can just remind everyone on the road that if they want respect from other road users first we have to act like we are doing the right thing.

mcdurdin wrote:I also discovered the following pair of rules today, which I wasn't aware of, and which resolves the Bonnet Hill issues neatly:

"A driver on a road with a dividing line may drive to the right of the dividing line to avoid an obstruction if the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and it is necessary and reasonable, in all the circumstances, for the driver to drive to the right of the dividing line to avoid the obstruction; and the driver can do so safely (Rule 139)"

"A driver must not overtake a vehicle unless the driver has a clear view of any approaching traffic; and the driver can safely overtake the vehicle (Rule 140)"

Just looked at the Bonnet Hill area on Google Streetview and it is pretty much all double lines. No rule on obstructions applies in the case of drivers overtaking cyclists (ie. cyclists are not traffic obstructions, they are traffic ). Where there are double lines all drivers should either:

1. have some patience and wait, driving slower behind; or2. overtake safely and slowly, while not crossing the double lines, where there is room to do so.

il padrone wrote:Just looked at the Bonnet Hill area on Google Streetview and it is pretty much all double lines. No rule on obstructions applies in the case of drivers overtaking cyclists (ie. cyclists are not traffic obstructions, they are traffic ). Where there are double lines all drivers should either:

1. have some patience and wait, driving slower behind; or2. overtake safely and slowly, while not crossing the double lines, where there is room to do so.

Simple really.... it's the law.

Simply ignored by 95% of motorists

OK, now that this thread has officially gone off the rails, let's give it a new name...

It's double lines, all the way from Taroona to Kingston. And it's narrow, too narrow to safely pass a cyclist [b]without[b] crossing the double lines with one wheel; I ride about 0.5m from the edge of the road which is a sensible line to take with the uneven edges of the road up both sides of Bonnet. This means a normal family car must pass within 0.5m in order to overtake without crossing the lines: just not safe at any speed -- no margin for error. Now I ride Bonnet Hill many times a week -- there are plenty of places where that obstruction rule, if you apply it to cyclists, is an excellent compromise. Plenty of places where there is enough visibility for a car to safely pass. At the speeds I ride up Bonnet Hill, I am effectively an obstruction on the hill. And I'm not the slowest rider up the hill. You may be faster than me, but you still won't be as fast enough for the car driver to feel anything but frustration!

Please have another read of the rule and see if you can't find it in your heart to consider yourself and your fellow cyclists an obstruction just for the purposes of satisfying rule 139. For all other situations, of course, we are traffic!

iaintas wrote:well this got completely off topic didn't it! Anyway to add, the area was basically down into the sandy bay area near Nutgrove beach, the group was just cruising along chatting doing about 25km/h, my point was that if you want to get into a group with the same kit then you should acknowledge that really your also advertising cycling as a sport, and to ride without any consideration for other road users is pretty poor form, i doubt it matters as much when your in small groups if your a bit erratic in your riding as a safe overtake by cars can be had, but when the group is spread out over about 20m and several guys are weaving from the left to the center line when in cruising mode. Anyway point made, and i hope that some of the DOME guys here can just remind everyone on the road that if they want respect from other road users first we have to act like we are doing the right thing.

iaintas wrote: if you want to get into a group with the same kit then you should acknowledge that really your also advertising cycling as a sport

??I would have thought that these circumstances indicated that the participants were advertising a business, not a sport.??

I notice that Barrytas has made a very sensible comment. Hopefully he will soon realise that this thread does not deserve much that is sensible. In fact, I am not going to phone Peter at Dome cycling yesterday and complain in advance about my cycling indiscretions from next week.

Lift your game Barry, your future behaviour is leaving a lot to be desired last week.

Seeing that this thread is going everywhere I might continue to add to the confusion. there were 16 in the main bunch at the fabulous Wednesday Richmond Bakery Ride this morning and no doubt someone did something wrong at some time during the two hours of fun. I didn't see too much but I did see one car that was by far too polite to pass the single file or riders to overtake on a double white line create havoc behind amongst the impatient line of following drivers. I was particularly impressed by the young chappie who came through at an intersection and managed to drop a wheelie in both first and second gear in a four wheel drive!

We had an interstate rider, a first-time rider and one who is just coming back to riding following an accident a while ago. He was out riding, on his own, going around a roundabout when he fell and broke his hip. Perhaps we should all take note of this and make sure we avoid roundabouts and riding on our own - perhaps we should ride with the Dome bunch down Sandy Bay Road before the roundabouts get put in.

master6 wrote:Nobody is perfect, and from time to time people will perform, in the excitement of the moment, at less than ideal.

Perhaps we should all try to lift our game, and remember the advice about living in glass houses................................

True statements, but...See, the thing is, there is a reason why "..it's just like a riding a bike..." is such a pervasive phrase in the English language. It's not a hard activity to do correctly.

Blaming the conditions, someone's enthusiasm or the presence or not of a 'road captain' are just excuses for people who can't be bothered learning all the requisite skills to ride or race safely in bunches.

Hence, the Dome riders who choose to practise their sprint leadouts on the bike track at 7:30am on Wednesday mornings, and who choose to not slow down for walkers and other commuters (some with kids) lest it interfere with their strava file, should be publically castigated for behaving like utter morons.

Doc Savage wrote:Hence, the Dome riders who choose to practise their sprint leadouts on the bike track at 7:30am on Wednesday mornings,

I am not aware of any "Dome " rides on Wednesday mornings.

What is a "Dome rider"? Am I a "Fluid" rider when wearing my plain red jersey from Anaconda, or a "Green" rider when wearing my green high vis shirt.

Any Joe can wear any shirt or kit of his choosing, and that is where it ends. I once saw a skinny teenage kid half my size wearing some kit that I had left at the municipal rubbish dump.

If the whingers and whimperers on this thread want to improve other peoples behaviour, have the guts to speak to the person seen infringing. Dont spray your crap near me because my shirt is of a certain type.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.